Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramanuja Vijayaraghavan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ramanuja Vijayaraghavan[edit]
Created by User:Rvramanujan. Returns 3 Google links[1]. Delete as non-notable. I've already copied the content to the user page. utcursch | talk 08:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Vanity Fan1967 15:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Appears to be highly notable Indian scientist. Google searches are stymied by Indian (and journal) practice of identifying him as "R. Vijayaraghavan", and there are quite a few notable Indian academics identified that way. And one of them frequently writes on superconductivity and magnetism, which indicates the article is verifiable. Monicasdude 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep needs to be edited; but this person actually has published papers (Google Scholar) [2]. DevanJedi 02:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have wikified it and removed unnecessary info. This person seems legitimate; a few smart Google searches are required to verify but definitely not worth deleting. Search 'vijayaraghavan magnetism' or 'vijayaraghavan tifr' and Ramannuja Vijayaraghavan is also listed on Iyengar DevanJedi 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe in a delete just for the sake of WP:AUTO. If you believe that the article needs to be cleaned up, then let us work on it. Since Gurubrahma and Thatcher131 actually seem to believe that he is notable, deletion simply to make a point about WP:AUTO seems unnecessary. If we agree that he is notable, then the article only adds to the Wikipedia; I think the only point of contention should be whether he is notable or not. DevanJedi 14:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote veering towards weak delete. I have no doubts that he is notable as he is also a recipient of the Bhatnagar award. However, it appears to be a violation of WP:AUTO and also the present content of the article is unverifiable. I think that WP:AUTO violations are bad for the project. --Gurubrahma 07:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per Gurubrahma. Thatcher131 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per DevanJedi While it reads like a CV it should be kept as the subjects' works and positions make the person notable. Afterall wikipedia has thousands of obscure Christian authors with vanity press books, I think wikipedia can handle saving one article on a Indian scientist. Arbusto 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As notable and fine with a little clean up kotepho 15:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.